- (1.) Heard Sri Tanay Hazari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-authorities.
(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 08.04.2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, whereby revision petition preferred against the order dated 30.01.2013, passed by the Tehsildar, Haidergarh, district Barabanki has set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Tehsildar concerned for decision afresh.
(3.) Undisputedly the recorded tenure holder of the land was one Roshanjama, who is said to have died in the year 1988. On 24.10.1988, the name of Mubeen, son of Roshanjama under the guardianship of Badrunnisha, who is his mother, was recorded in P.A.11. However, Nanhu, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had denied that Mubeen is the son of deceased tenure holder-Roshanjama. On recording the name of Mubeen in P.A.11 in respect of the land in question, Badrunnisha being his mother is said to have executed a sale deed dated 16.11.1988 in favour of the petitioners on the basis of which the petitioners sought mutation of their names by moving application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Nanhu, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents also filed objection claiming his right over the land in question on the ground that the original tenure holder, Roshanjama had died issue less and, in fact, neither Mubeen is his son nor Badrunnisha is his wife.;